We know a few things for sure about Eva Moskowitz’s NYC charter schools.
We know they have very high test scores.
We know that the Broad Foundation was so impressed by the test scores that it awarded the charter chain $5 million to expand.
We know that the chain wants to expand to 100 schools in the next decade.
Now we know something else, something that had long been suspected. Success Academy uses its strict disciplinary code to push out students with special needs. We know because a parent taped the conversation and gave it to reporters at the Néw York Daily News.
“There was a point when I was getting a call every day for every minor thing,” Zapata said. “They would say he was crying excessively, or not looking straight forward, or throwing a tantrum, or not walking up the stairs fast enough, or had pushed another kid.”
“What school officials did not do, Zapata said, was provide the kind of special education services that her son’s individual educational plan, or IEP, requires.”
The publisher of the Daily News is vociferously pro-charter, as is the editorial board. The reporters play it straight Nd report the news.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The problems with this kind of reporting (aside from the fact that it lacks any decent statistical analysis and is impressionistic) is that similar anecdotes exist for many many schools (its not just Eva’s schools that can produce these kinds of stories (and anyone who has led a school for any time can relate a story of unfair and even fabricated stories of this kind). They don’t really mean anything – one instance or even several is not a basis for making a general claims that differential attrition (pushed out or by family choice) explains or accounts for the outstanding passing rate of SA schools. At least two things need to be done for critics and skeptics to show that differential attrition (weakest performers leaving SA) is behind SA score success:
1) Attrition rates need to be compared with similar schools. Attrition rates vary across NYC schools but the magnitudes reported for SA don’t seem to be off the charts (except when compared to an unfair mean figure of all schools across the district) – the key issue is who is leaving and how does this compare to who leaves in other schools with similar demographics. NYCDOE does, to some extent account for this in its Report card- which uses a pool of 20-30 peer schools. Attrition rates may seem high, but all schools lose students and high need schools more so than others (and much of this attrition just comes with poverty, transient populations, migration, etc);
2) Actual score distributions, not just arbitrary (and largely undefendible) cutoff score created “passing” rates need to be examined, and compared.
This kind of reporting does nothing to advance the serious critique of charters, and if we academics join the bashing based on this kind of impressionistic anecdote we fall prey to similar kinds of nonsense in the other direction. Lets stick to serious analysis when numbers actually do matter – Bruce Baker, Gary Rubenstein work among others.
Serious analysis and statistics are important, Gabriel. I agree.
But one does not replace the other. Localized citizen journalism tells important things to the masses as well . . .
Uh, Oh. Eva is making excuses. Success Academy’s attrition & suspension rates are significantly higher than their public school counterparts.(see link below for a comparison chart.) IDEA is explicit about assuring students with IEPs receive the accommodations & modifications they need to succeed on social/emotional goals. That means tailoring a school wide discipline plan to support the child’s individual needs. A public school cannot say they cannot accommodate a child’s IEP, for any reason. No excuses allowed.
Why should Eva’s charters receive public tax dollars if they expel children in special education?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/success-academy-fire-parents-fight-disciplinary-policy-article-1.1438753
It may be impressionistic – but – given that there are in fact dozens of these reports, I would say that to be dismissive of them is to see smoke and not suspect there’s a fire somewhere causing it. Parents don’t generally sacrifice themselves and potentially invite retaliation on their children unless they at least perceive that they’ve been sleighted. When you have so many people saying similar things, it’s hard to ignore.
As for attrition rates, typically, charters have NOT reported attrition rates. The regents only 2 months ago started investigating this – http://gothamschools.org/2013/07/08/state-looks-to-tighten-leash-on-student-mobility-data-for-charters/
That mobility should also be time charted to see if they are accepting special education students, then, pushing them out after the funding is securely with the school.
Numbers will help, but, don’t discount qualitative evidence as well. Common sense will tell you that seeing these stories repeatedly means either there’s a conspiracy among parents with children to try to take on a multi-millionaire with political connections, or, that they are genuinely fighting for the rights of their children.
Unless these parents are suddenly explicitly connected to groups that would benefit from Success being taken down a peg, I don’t see how they would benefit from this.
I want to see results where a charter take regular kids and special kids and succeeds where the public school doesn’t. With 100% transparency on the money and where the profit is going.
Did I say profit? I meant taxpayers money.
Gabriel,
What this boils down to is that the market-based model of school management is dehumanizing to children… and can only be so.
Once you start viewing human beings—in this case the children / students—as commodities, you will judge them on two primary criteria:
— lowest cost to educate (i.e the easiest-to-educate…, no special ed; no English Language Learners; no homeless; no foster-care kids; no behavior problems; no kids of single and/or minimally educated parents… the list goes on);
— highest outputs (using the dubious measure of test scores).
In this line of reasoning, educating special ed kids is antithetical. They—and the other hard-to-educate categores—must be avoided at all costs… either through screening them at the front end, or throwing them out if they slip through the initial screening process.
The admission and expulsion (i.e. counseling out) policies of Eva’s schools are this dynamic in action.
Now if Eva were honest about this from the get-go, that would be one thing. However, she, her fellow Success administrators, and her Success spokesperson lie, lie, lie…
So a parent has to resort to taping them in secret to show how Eva and co. lie.
I am unclear about what you mean by the phrase “a market based model of school management”. Is higher education a market based model of school management?
Jack, I agree the enrollment dynamics may be designed in dehumanizing ways, but not just by market dynamics or charter school success ambitions. Selective, screened, specialized and themed schools also do this.. It’s not clear to me that selectivity or schools that focus on sub parts of the student population are necessarily a bad idea. I don’t think the comprehensive schools work well at all – they are asked to do too many things for too wide a variation of students and often end up doing nothing well. I’m certainly worried about resource allocation issues and its clear some populations and schools are screwed by is. This needs to be corrected but it really is a separate issue from whether charter schools can do a better job. And motivated poor minority students are one of the most neglected subgroup of students around (see for example minority enrollment a in the specialized schools). Lets suppose Eva is cherry picking poor kids with highly motivated parents willing to submit themselves to her regime – And that she sets expectations that push out some families. I’m fine with that also – there are other options and parents are now free to shop around. And those kids that stick around in Eva’s schools have immaculate classrooms, great resources, more funding, etc. which is more than they’d get in their local comprehensive school. I don’t say this just as a school leader and academic, I say this as a privileged parent whose children go to Harlem public comprehensive schools right next to Eva’s schools. The differences are stark and obvious the minute you walk in. I almost don’t care about the test scores – just the obviously more beautiful, better organized and well run school environments would be a game changer for many children of poverty.
This just perpetuates the terms of the debate only being about metrics. Narrative evidence is evidence.
I wish someone would do this research. Why aren’t you talking to parents who leave these schools and asking them why they left? (I’m not talking about looking at “data,” I’m talking about actually interviewing human beings.) This is a big issue, so why when we are researching just about everything else having to do with education isn’t someone doing this? I have a feeling the answer is that there wouldn’t be any funding for this research from the usual suspects, but I would love to be proved wrong by actually seeing the research study that you do. Looking forward to it. Until then I hope more and more parents start to speak out so that we can get to the bottom of this issue.
So, Diane, how would you explain why other Charter School networks that you and others have accused of “pushing out” students (KIPP, for example) fared poorly on the new exams?
There is far too much loose talk about the implications of the new tests at this point in the game. It would be healthy if everyone tried to first understand exactly how the new common-core aligned tests differed from previous tests before drawing stark conclusions about what the results tell us about the schools and students tested (It’s far too simple, for example, to say that the new exams focused on “higher order skills” and the former rote learning). Then we can begin to make meaningful comparisons regarding how various school’s curriculums, methods and policies are linked to results.
Andrew, I saw one form of the fifth grade Common Core test. It was written at a level of difficulty resembling 8th grade NAEP. The state inappropriately decided that the state cut scores should align with NAEP proficient, and anything less is “failing.” That’s ridiculous the tests were designed to fail a majority of kids. Test developers know in advance what the diffuculty level of every question is. Why did the state want most kids to fail? Ask Commissioner King.
I brought this point up before, but this seems a good spot to bring it up again. If a quarter of the fifth graders in NYC are passing exams that are “at the level of difficulty resembling 8th grade NAEP”, why are those students doing fifth grade level work?
You’re deflecting the question. Do you agree or disagree that you should not be making sweeping judgements about the implications of a test that you apparently didn’t take the time to know fully. Noting that it’s “harder” and aligned to “NAEP proficient” tells us next to nothing about what knowledge, skills, and dispositions it measures (relative to the old tests) and is certainly not a basis for drawing conclusions about what the results suggest about students, school organizations, school leaders, and policy makers.
What’s ridiculous is when discussions surrounding vital developments in education are taken over by polemics and hearsay rather than deliberate and intellectually honest analysis.
Andrew – I’m assuming you’ve been calling on the powers that be to release the full exams to the public so that there is full transparency and the debate you call for can occur. Are you questioning their decision NOT to release the exams with the same vehemence? As an intellectually honest fellow, I’m sure you have been.
Juan Gonzalez gets it straight and reports the news. Other reporters do that too, but sometimes they uncritically report whatever legal expert Campbell Brown says. In fact, even when they did their big “Hometown Heroes” thing, ostensibly to honor teachers, they place legal expert Brown on the selection board.
Juan Gonzalez is reporting on education for the Daily News? That is good news. He does actual reporting.
Want to know my secret to high test scores? Read on…..
Last night as I sat in bed reading the five-paragraph essays I have my 7th grade science students write a small light bulb started to go off and the ahhhaa moment started to materialize.
I didn’t have to do this. Really the purpose of the five-paragraph essay is so I can see where my students stand in writing skills, following multi-step instructions and assessing prior scientific knowledge. I can do this by just glancing at how much they write, their sentence structure, and spot checking the quality of their own insights and reflections.
But I can’t do it that way. It would be easier, but I just can’t.
One of the last questions asks what grade you think you will get in science class and how you plan on achieving this grade? The first paper I picked up was what did me in. The little boy said he thinks he will get a C maybe a B- because “I’m not that smart.” He continued to tell me how he will study and pay attention but not to expect much because he said it again- “I’m not that smart.”
I stopped, took off my reading glasses ( yes, age is catching up to me) and felt my eyes start to water a little. This boy is my goal. Who told him he is not that smart? Who even implied it to this young man? My head began to swim with thoughts. Where would I be at today if I was told or even had the impression that I was “not that smart?” It’s one thing to think that about getting into an ivy league college at age 12, but it’s another thing entirely to give up at such a low bar at such a young age. When I was twelve I still wanted to be the POTUS or a millionaire ( It was the 70’s) or some famous scientist that cures cancer. My grades were not that great and my parents would have been happier if I brought home some of those B’s and C’s and less of those D’s and C-‘s. But I still dreamed.
It’s 11:30p.m. and I have to get up at 6:00a.m., but I am still reading my students’ essays. Not because I have to, but because I want to. I want to find those little diamonds in the rough and show them that they are not just mere pebbles but diamonds waiting to shine. This is what I do. This is my job – I make diamonds. I correct courses and alter lives. I am a change agent as Rhee calls herself. But I am an agent of good positive change; however, my tools are not quantifiable or even measurable. How can you measure love, respect or inspiration? For that matter how can you measure integrity, honesty or creativity? The things that matter most and the things these kids need the most cannot be measured.
Around the same time that these thoughts were going through my head I realized that teaching really is a calling and that maybe MOST people have no idea what a calling is. To paraphrase JFK, a calling is when you choose to serve, not because it is easy, but because it is hard. A calling is when you voluntarily choose a life of poverty or just above poverty to help those who are less fortunate. A calling is when you devote more than eight hours a day and five days a week ensuring that other people’s children are taken care of even if they do not recognize what you do. A calling entails doing the right and proper thing even when no one will notice and shunning the limelight because that is not your reward. Your reward is when they send you a t-shirt from Berkeley or come back to just say “hi” and “thank you, or “you’re the reason I am in medical school.” That is a calling. I calling is a lifetime devotion – not a few years to put on your resume.
I don’t do this job for the money. It never seems to be enough and I wind up spending hundreds a year on lunches, backpacks and basic supplies for kids that are not my own. I don’t do it for the glory. The media and public took that away before I got here. I see the disrespect in the morning paper and the news at night. I don’t do it because I can’t do anything else. I have four degrees and this is a second career. I also happen to love science. I don’t do it for the easy hours or the perks like a busted AC in 90-100degree weather EVERY single year. I do it because there are little boys and girls whom come through my door who are hungry for stability, respect, love, patience and all those unmeasurable untestable things.
For those of you whom are religious you might recall in the last days good will be called evil and evil will be called good. Perhaps we are in the last days.
One more of Eva’s “success secrets” is related to her protected status by Klein and Bloomberg. I’m curious if Joel and Mike will go on the record to support Eva given evidence about the IEP federal violations.
It’s only a matter of time until parents connect the dots about Eva who puts herself and her salary first. Attorneys are paying attention.
Let’s see: a mother tape records a Success Academy official saying “… we aren’t able to meet what his (her son’s) IEP recommends.”
And you say this is “impressionistic,” implying some kind of questionable subjectivity regarding very clear, explicit language, regarding behavior this chain is notorious for.
Fail. Try again.
Lets take the incident at truth value – it did happen. This does not in itself account for the score differences. There is no way this could account for score differences. It doesn’t even begin to address the huge differences in pass rates. if the point of the article is there is one pissed off parent whose kids iep the principal judged they could not address (pretty common – nycdoe pays millions to place kids in private schools for kids with LD). . Now lets look at parent satisfaction surveys which over 90% of parents in Eva’s schools fill out. Eva’s schools parent satisfaction surveys are through the roof. My pt is that Juan Gonzalez article is not a strong basis for building a case against SA, upholding it as such undermines the credibility of reform critiques.
Maybe you should also look at the turnover rates of teachers and principals working for Eva. The woman is a horror. She was once a supporter of public ed until she saw the $ signs. And yes, even if one child is “counseled out” it can make all the difference in the world when it comes to test scores. But Eva has counseled out more than one student.
I know if I were a parent, I wouldn’t complain for fear of Eva finding a reason to kick my child out.
Teacher turnover is an entirely different issue, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but beyond that unrelated to the specific issue on the table (does this anecdote provide evidence evas school test scores are a product of selective attrition). School environment surveys are anonymous and filed electronically, as is the case in all schools. Eva’s school may be criticized for many things – but parent satisfaction doesn’t appear to be one of them.
Trump University also got good reviews. And I am sure Eva keeps a tight lid on her parents as well.
But when her school is the only one to score well on a test where no teacher in NYC was given the curriculum and were flying blind, I see visions of Michelle Rhee.
We really should stick to the issues at hand and not respond by further attacking unrelated issues (teacher turnover may or may not be a real issue of concern – it’s complicated and an argument for which the relevant facts are not really on the table. But to clarify even that: Eva has more than one school – all got scores that outperform schools in the same zip code. I don’t know anything about Trumps bogus university satisfaction data, but can’t imagine it has comparison schools and protocols anything like DOE’s (not that these are perfect either – but there is a diference btw not perfect and useless). Moréover there are models both in business, in públic service and in schooling) of high turnover, high performance organizations (e.g. The marines, the Peace Corps, many international schools). But this is another issue- and we’d need data and research to inform a discussion on this also. The general pt. being that without data and serious observation (not anecdote, not stories, not giving a mouthpiece to one or a few angry parents) we really can’t (or shouldn’t) base our critiques and expect our arguments to be taken seriously. SA schools may be unsuccessful, Eva’s leadership may be ineffective, and her schools may be bad places to send kids to and horrible workplaces – but to argue so requires we look at the relevant evidence thoughtfully and fairly. The Daily News article doesn’t do so – and as such represents another unfair attack that may have a place in pop media but should not in academic and professional circles such as Diane’s blog.
In that case we should look at what this article does do…..It brings up valid concerns that must be investigated. Her test scores were based on a curriculum not introduced to NYC students and the public needs to know why.
Btw, when a school can’t retain teachers, it’s never a sign of a “good thing”.
Thank you for acknowledging that the tape recorded conversation did happen, that it referred to an actual instance of yet another special needs child being forced out of yet another “miracle” charter school, and was not “impressionistic.”
By which readers of ths blog correctly assumed you to be implying “invalid” or “false.”
As for your vaunted statistics, like most charter supporters, you can’t/ won’t acknowledge that when low income public school students leave a public school, they usually enroll in another public school. However, when children are “counseled out” of miracle schools like SA, they almost always return to the public school system.
Another misleading comparison.
Finally, there are two ways to look at the miracle test scores at SA: the schools have an unhealthy obsession with test prep, accompanying their authoritarian, repressive environments, and get rid of students who might bring down their stats, and/or they cheat.
Take a look at the scores of the SA school in the Bronx that posted test results orders of magnitude higher than virtually all other schools in the system, charter or public: the rule of any good card cheat is that you don’t a ways deal yourself an ace when you can win with a ten.
Their test scores are bogus, and will be proven to be such.
What is data but a string of anecdotes pieced together 😉
Well said, Gabriel. Michael Fiorillo is utterly confident that SA’s test scores will be proven “bogus”. Why should we take him any more seriously than those who are championing SA results with limited understanding of the schools and/or tests that they comment on. Let’s step back and deliberately look at a range of data and evidence before casting unequivocal judgements.
Andrew – why should we step back to look at the data from these tests? What if we don’t believe in them? What if we don’t think they are educationally sound measures of our students or our students’ abilities?
I’m in the classroom. I don’t get to see my students’ results from last year until this Fall – when they are no longer my students. I am not given a breakdown of student performance in any way, shape or form – so they cannot inform my future instruction. I’m gagged – I’m not allowed to talk about specific test items with anyone – even fellow educators – so again the exams are walled off from informing instruction. Neither I – nor any other educators I know – have been involved in forming these exams that assess our instruction (although we often wonder who did write them, and how many years they spent in classrooms). The tests aren’t even released to the public in their entirety. There’s no full disclosure. I can tell you – having administered the tests – that not all the questions and passages were developmentally appropriate. There were confusing questions. “Gotcha” questions. Questions with more than one right answer. But since the tests weren’t released to the public – since you can’t see them for yourself – you get to sit back and question whether I’m right or not.
I don’t champion one school’s results. I don’t cast aspersions on another’s. Because the tests were flawed. The tests represent flawed measures of student progress… and – heaven help us – teacher progress.
People hold up the data from these tests as if they will lead us to some sort of panacea… seemingly neglecting fun Mark Twain quotes about statistics. Seemingly not realizing what happens with law enforcement agencies when they need to use data to show that crime has gone down. That any data set can be manipulated to show desired results. That stats can be “juked” – and when jobs are on the line – they will be. One needs to look nowhere else than New York and the fluctuations on our own state and city tests these past 10 years to see this phenomenon at work.
Anyone who calls for a discussion of the data without a discussion of where the data comes from, what it represents, and the monied interested behind the data… well they certainly have some stake in this game… but I find it hard to believe the pursuit of intellectual honesty is one of them.
Alex,
First let me say that I agree with you that the tests should be transparent and everyone should see them the minute they were given to the students (and an independent panel of educational experts, unconnected to Pearson and to NYDOE, should have made an autonomous evaluation of their validity, etc, way before they were used…and many more things should have been done to insure this process doesn’t become the joke it appears to be becoming…Part of the problem is that “Barbarians” are in charge – people without the educational background or the experience, needed to be making these very serious judgments and decisions…but this is a different issue.
Lets focus and again suppose that for this argument thread, that the latest tests results, (and the state tests before them, in which SA, also did exceedingly well), don’t really say much about educational effectiveness and are largely meaningless measures, or that they are so noisy as to be irrelevant (fluctuate for many reasons unrelated to anything that happens in schools and classrooms – which by the way I actually think that may indeed be largely the case, but that’s another discussion, another data set, and another series of research findings). Lets also accept that the parent surveys are somehow rigged or parents too scared to respond in negative ways (wow if Eva has that kind of power I actually think I want her to be my kids school principal! My school principal can’t even get a Spanish program going). Lets also put aside that SA schools don’t lack prospective families/students who appear to freely and willingly submit to whatever educational program Eva proposes – including what some of us might deem to be dehumanizing practices we would never let our own children submit to…..
This still doesn’t make the complaints from one (or even a handful) of parents about mishandling an IEP case, a strong argument about the success (or lack of success) of any school. It means very little in the big picture of things and it certainly cannot explain the differences in scores that SA obtained, not just in this round of test, but in every one of them for the last several years. These anecdotal articles should not be the basis for making any kind of determination about any school, or for judging school policies. Or for lambasting any school. Schools, every school, accumulate complaints of these sort for all kinds of reasons – unreasonable expectations, delusions about what is possible given limited resources, anger about the predicament their children are in / as well as / incompetence by administrators and teachers in charge, carelessness, being spread too thin, too busy to pay attention to each and every case when hundreds of cases of every kind imaginable hit school leaders desks, central office incompetence, misinterpretations of the law and of the administrative regulations, not caring…and yes possible even purposeful neglect to get these kids out of the school so they become someones else’s challenge.. I’m not suggesting any of this is good (or bad) it just is – but regardless the anecdotal complaint that is the sole basis of the Daily News article is not grounds for concluding much of anything – and serious educators should not give it more credence than it deserves as it undermines the really serious arguments against the reformy nonsense that is going around these days.
If the tests data (or any kind of data) that might be reasonably related to school effectiveness means absolutely nothing (and that definitively is something important to discuss and try to figure out), then it shouldn’t be used to attack charter schools either – I’ve made this point in Diane’s blog before. But above all please let’s put aside ad hominem attacks on people who aren’t even involved in the discussion and cannot defend themselves (e.g. Eva M). And I’ll also put aside your insinuation that I must be an interested party because I’m calling for a focused discussion of the substantive issue at hand (and not random attacks towards real or imagined Charter demons ;)). FYI, I am currently far removed from the charter and NYC education world (I consult in international school settings and help start-up and turnaround international schools in developing countries) – my only current connection to the city is that two of my children go to vanilla flavored GT programs in NYC public schools, in Harlem, and right next to many charter schools…including one of the much maligned SA.
Gabriel, you raise many interesting points. The complaint of a single parent does not discredit the scores of one school or charter chain. It is worth noting that there have been similar complaints in the past. More important, Bruce Baker’s studies show a considerable difference in the proportion of ELLs, special education, and free lunch as between Success Academies and district schools. http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/what-do-the-available-data-tell-us-about-nyc-charter-school-teachers-their-jobs/
This matters, not just because the potentially low-scoring students have been excluded, but because of the peer effects, going to school only with motivated students.
Schools that exclude the problem kids get higher scores, but what should we do with the problem kids?
I think Dr. Ravitch is making an important point here. Gathering motivated students together gives the motivated students a better education and, perhaps, the less motivated students a worse education. Dispersing the motivated students perhaps gives the less motivated students a better education but gives motivated students a worse education.
Unfortunately the issue here is which student will get a better education, a much harder policy decision to make.
Alex,
If you read my posts carefully, you will see that my focus is not on the data, but on the importance of understanding the tests as a prerequisite to examining the data, and certainly before drawing conclusions about what the tests or data tell us about a school or school system.
Yes, I agree that there needs to be transparency regarding the test and the process by which it was made. You and others on this blog (Gabriel, Diane, E.D. Hirsch. etc.) have noted problems with the process and the lack of transparency up to this point. But even here, there needs to be some even handedness in the critique. I don’t think it’s fair or productive to assume that “barbarians” (to use Garbriel’s term) produced the test or that teachers were entirely left out of the process. I would like to have been a part of it but you can’t reasonably expect that everyone with an interest or stake in the matter can have substantive input.
I also won’t assume that the lack of transparency up to this point is solely a product of vested interests or nefarious intent. It goes without saying that politics and money are a part of this game, but I also assume that there are some valid reasons for releasing the tests less quickly than the general public, and certainly teachers, would like them to be released (standardization, multiple forms, etc.)
Diane,
I agree and im fully fsmiliar with Bruce’s analísis and evidence based approach, which among other things tries to control for the key variables to make better comparisons on performance metrics (and critically questions the metrics validity also) is what we need to be serious critics. If Juan Gonzalez Daily News had looked at Bruce’s data on the same issue and done a good report with that – they’d have my praise. But they didn’t and what they did is just take potshots (like they pretty much always do) based on anecdotes, individual sagas, etc. and this can’t be the basis for public policy or even public debates on important issues like educational reform.
Gabriel,
Eva sets herself up by claiming that she takes exactly the same kids as the public school with which she is co-located, whose free space she covets. Less boasting would be better for her.
Andrew – help me understand then – you want to understand the tests. You are not allowed to see the tests. Unpack that for me.
Oh and Andrew I should add – you state that NYSED is releasing the tests less quickly, and give possible reasons. NYSED has stated that they are no longer releasing the state tests – in their entirety – publicly at all. FYI.
I dream of the day when these greed driven reactionaries like Eva Moskowitz are frogged marched in full shackles to the dock at The Hague and tried for the crimes they committed against an entire generation of students.
At the end of the day privatization and neoliberal education reform are just another form of abuse perpetrated on children and communities.
Oh! But Charter Schools are public schools, now aren’t they! Therefore, they have to follow the rules of IDEA and Section 504. Plus, it is illegal to suspend a child for behavior related to his or her disability.
I have said it before. All that it will take to derail the charter movement is some special education parents requiring them to FOLLOW THE LAW. The two words schools fear most are MEDIA and LAWSUIT. Sounds as though one parent realizes that. She needs to network with others and even 5-10 parents per system can bring the charters to their knees. Some teacher needs to encourage this parent and give her tools if she doesn’t have them already.
Go MAMA Go!
The Network though has NO CLUE what each school is doing. It’s very badly managed.
Check out Success Academy Upper West, where the main office used to be as usual in a half-sized classroom but the greedy principal, Ms Roby, took a full-size classroom instead; leaving 30 kindergarteners on a half-sized room that the BUP clearly stated was meant for admin uses.
That room has less than 500 sq ft, the minimum for a class of 12. Ms Roby is putting 30 kids there!!! And sometimes their parents too during meetings. It’s a total hazard.
The principal Ms Roby and other couple of admins is able to live large at the expense of those 5 year olds. The Network didn’t even know about this change in the use of space!!!
The EIS clearly states that elementary classes HAVE to be allocated full-size classrooms. Ms Roby not only doesn’t understand the very basics of early childhood education, but she also does whatever she wants regardless of what the Network thinks it’s ideal for the kids. It’s the wild west, and the 5 year olds pay the consequences.
This would be ILLEGAL in any public school.
> Oh! But Charter Schools are public schools, now aren’t they! Therefore, they have to follow the rules of IDEA and Section 504. Plus, it is illegal to suspend a child for behavior related to his or her disability.
TRUE. I bet there are enough violations for a class action lawsuit. The question is how to bring all those cases together when most are “solved” through attrition.
> Success Academy uses its strict disciplinary code to push out students with special needs. We know because a parent taped the conversation and gave it to reporters at the Néw York Daily News.
I have the Special Education Manager on tape saying that my son’s needs are well-documented and that the accommodation requested is standard.
But that also the school will not accommodate my son until he disturbs or hits another child. How should I proceed? Is this a violation of Section 504?